You can post the meaning, but I still don't think you know what it means. If anything, it's the gay couple who are bigots. Not the baker. He refused for religious beliefs, yet would still offer services, as stated in the document.

He refused them a service based on their sexuality that is bigotry, He is not treating ever customer even handily

It goes against his religious beliefs. It even said in the document he'd be happy to make a birthday cake, etc.

So by that logic, we should force people to do things against their beliefs? So no, he is not a bigot. He's not intolerant of their opinions, they are of his, though.

They easily could have just gone to a bakery that would have done the cake.

if his religious beliefs prevent him from treating each and every customer fairly then maybe he is in the wrong business, Even Chick-fil-A knows that you have to treat every customer fairly and evenly to the best of your ability

It goes against his religious beliefs. It even said in the document he'd be happy to make a birthday cake, etc.

So by that logic, we should force people to do things against their beliefs? So no, he is not a bigot. He's not intolerant of their opinions, they are of his, though.

They easily could have just gone to a bakery that would have done the cake.

Hm, I suppose that's one way to spin it. Those who want to be treated equally are bigots now. Eh.

I'm actually a little torn on the issue. On the one hand, discrimination against gay people is messed up. On the other hand, sure, people have their sincerely held and quite wrong religious beliefs. I used to hold such beliefs myself so I'm somewhat sympathetic towards people who hold such beliefs. More sympathetic towards some than others as some are kind of mean-spirited and some aren't.

I don't like the idea of telling gay people to go somewhere else. There are instances that might be fine and many times, people may prefer to do that. But what if it's a small town? People shouldn't have to go from business to business hoping that maybe this business will accept them. Being turned away can't be a pleasant experience.

Eh, I don't have a really strong opinion on this exact issue, but it shouldn't be an issue because ideally people wouldn't be prejudiced to begin with. But some are.

But they didn’t practice a “straights only” business model - all the products in their store were available to all no matter what their orientation.

On paper maybe. In practice, they denied service to the gay couple on account of them being gay, which is ultimately what matters. The sign itself is just a way of avoiding the inconvenience of having to turn them down in person. They may as well have put up a sign saying "wedding cakes for heterosexuals only"

am i reading this right? in the past, a Coloado court sided with bakers refusing to make cakes with offensive messages against gay people, so the supreme court ruled it's also perfectly ok for bakers to refuse making cakes for gay couples. i probably misred it.

"To Phillips,his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs."

This isn't really an angle that I thought about upon first hearing about this case. That being said (and without full knowledge of how this individual runs his bakery), I can't really agree that this is a valid argument, because I do not agree that baking a cake for someone constitutes a "wedding endorsement", unless the baker evaluates the strength and validity of the relationships of each couple he services. I cannot imagine that being a common practice among bakers...